My final comment is a suggestion that instead of offering latest entry as an alternative, that this approach be written into RDA as one of two choices, e.g. 2.1.2.3b) If the resource has sequentially numbered issues or parts, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available ''or the latest numbered issue or part available''. -- Adolfo Tarango, CRS Liaison, 9/15/13.

My final comment is a suggestion that instead of offering latest entry as an alternative, that this approach be written into RDA as one of two choices, e.g. 2.1.2.3b) If the resource has sequentially numbered issues or parts, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available ''or the latest numbered issue or part available''. -- Adolfo Tarango, CRS Liaison, 9/15/13.

+

+

+

I am in general agreement with the issues presented in this discussion paper. I agree that agencies should have the option to use the lowest or latest entry as the basis of description. I also appreciate Adolfo’s insightful comments on this topic.—-Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, Sept. 16, 2013

==Constituency responses==

==Constituency responses==

Revision as of 07:30, 16 September 2013

6JSC/DNB/Discussion/1 First issue v. latest (current) issue

To enter your comments in this click on the [edit] link for the section where you want to comment. You must be logged in to comment.

Please include in your comments:

Your name/liaison organization

Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

General comments

I am in general agreement with the thrust of this discussion paper. It makes a persuasive argument that we should adopt a latest-issue approach for serials. I would even go further and eliminate most "major changes", but that's not on the table. It would be preferable to follow the "new design" described on p. 14ff. of the paper, as opposed to a lot of alternative rules. The paper is a little misleading in its frequent comparisons to the treatment of integrating resources. For integrating resources we don't make new descriptions even for major changes in title, so there will still be a difference in treatment even if the DNB proposal is accepted. The proposal keeps the rules for major changes in serials and only deals with the minor changes that sometimes happen in between the major ones. --John Hostage (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2013 (PDT)

I am also in general agreement with the discussion paper. Adding the option of latest entry description might be a little complicated to get in place, but I think it's a worthwhile change. -- Steve Kelley, CC:DA, Sept. 12, 2013

The good thing about discussion papers is that you can encourage everyone to pursue the ideas presented without committing yourself. I'm still unenthusiastic about using latest-issue cataloging for all serials past and present, but the best way to put the earliest-issue/latest-issue debate behind us is to make the question less critical by allowing the complete title history of a serial to be encoded and displayed if, when and as appropriate. And the "new design" in this discussion paper looks like a first step in that direction. --Robert J. Rendall (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2013 (PDT)

I have a variety of concerns with this paper, the first being the clarity of scope. The paper’s introduction states:

"… The German language cataloguer’s community applies basically the same rules (based on the ISBD) to determine upon “major and minor changes” as the Anglo-American cataloguing community. In case of a “major change” in the title proper, a new description is made. But there also are “minor changes” in the title proper, which do not require a new description, such as a spelling variant in the title proper (e.g., “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie” and “Deutsche Nationalbibliographie”) or a change of the publisher’s name…”

The paper goes on to state the differing practice between AACR2/RDA and RAK/ZETA in the above context. My interpretation then is that the scope of discussion is limited to “minor changes,” and that the DNB is not proposing a change to the current practice of successive entry cataloging based on major changes. My comments hereafter reflect that interpretation, though most of them are applicable if the discussion pertained to moving away from successive entry cataloging. My second concern then is that application of this approach would be confusing to catalogers in that we would employ successive entry cataloging when dealing with major changes, but latest entry cataloging when dealing with minor changes.

Looking at the first reason for changing practice, on page 7, DNB posits that it is more convenient to the user to present them with the latest data about a publication. It is unfortunate that they don't provide any data supporting this assertion, but rather, base this observation on assumptions. While I concede that there are users that use the most recent data to judge whether or not a resource is the one they are looking for, this does not consider the fact that many users are searching using citations that may or may not reflect the current publication data or are basing their selection on recollections of data from previous searching. If it is confusing to a user to see earlier data when they have later data, it stands to reason that it is equally confusing for a user to see later data when they have earlier data and we must consider that this group may in fact represent the majority of users.

DNB asserts that users will always be most familiar with the publication data of the most current iteration. Perhaps, but to press the issue, are you aware of the most current publication data for the journals you read? Do you know if the current title of Time is "Time" or "Time magazine," is it "Cataloging and Classification Quarterly" or "Cataloging & Classification Quarterly?" These specific examples lead me to ask, are these differences really that confusing to users? Looking at the DNB example illustrating the point in the introduction on page 3, is any user actually going to notice the difference in the spelling of "nationalbibgrafie" in the title having retrieved the record via a match against a variant title access point provided in the record?

Consider next DNB's assertion that using as the basis of description the most current state of publication is a more principled application of RDA's principle of representation. Is it a more principled application if, out of run of say 30 volumes, the last two had a variation in data from the previous 28, or, in a multi-part monograph, the last volume was published by another agency? Might not a more "principled" application of the principle of representation have us consider the most used data as being more representative of the publication?

The argument outlined in section 4.3 dealing with e-journal is another one based on assumptions. Lacking any quantitative data of my own, I offer only my own observation that this is more of a problem with major title changes and that efforts such as KBART and our own efforts at UCSD are making vendors and publisher more aware of this issue and they are adjusting their practices accordingly. With regards to the “discrepancy” between serials and integrating resources, given they are different forms of issuance, I don’t have an issue with them being treated differently, admittedly, not a principled stance.

At the broader conceptual level, I’m actually supportive of the idea that we should be structuring RDA in a manner that supports these two approaches. As DNB notes, MARC already provides a mechanism to distinctively code the chronological sequences of publication data which a system could use to preferentially display whichever data the agency thought best for their user community. I’m not so sure similar coding could be developed for the title fields but would support their development. In our current environment, that might not be necessary, at least for OCLC users. Since OCLC allows for different language records to exist in parallel in its system, and since it is highly likely that the majority if not all the OCLC German language records would be created by libraries in Germany and Austria, it might work that the German/Austrian libraries could follow their latest entry practices for the German language records and that not interfere with a English language communities practice of using the earliest iteration. However, even in this case, explicit coding reflecting cataloging practice followed would be ideal.

My final comment is a suggestion that instead of offering latest entry as an alternative, that this approach be written into RDA as one of two choices, e.g. 2.1.2.3b) If the resource has sequentially numbered issues or parts, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available or the latest numbered issue or part available. -- Adolfo Tarango, CRS Liaison, 9/15/13.

I am in general agreement with the issues presented in this discussion paper. I agree that agencies should have the option to use the lowest or latest entry as the basis of description. I also appreciate Adolfo’s insightful comments on this topic.—-Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, Sept. 16, 2013